Daily review 11/12/2020

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, December 11th, 2020 - 90 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

90 comments on “Daily review 11/12/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Chris T 1
    11 December 2020 at 6:05 pm

    Meanwhile Trev' again.

    Their timing on releasing all this is extremely embarrassing to watch.

    Should feel sorry for him, but he is a bullying arsehole, so not possible.

    Will be very interesting to see how our caring, sharing govt will vote in his vote of no confidence in the new year, and whether they vote to support his bullying.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/123678280/parliaments-speaker-trevor-mallard-costs-taxpayer-333000-after-rape-allegation

    Parliament's Speaker Trevor Mallard costs taxpayer $333,000 after rape allegation

    Speaker Trevor Mallard has cost the taxpayer more than $333,000 after a parliamentary staffer he accused of rape pursued legal action, and the National Party now says it can no longer support Mallard in the job.

    The figure, revealed to the National Party in a written parliamentary question, includes a $158,000 settlement payment from the Speaker to the staffer, $171,000 to cover legal fees, and $4641.70 for Crown Law advice to the former deputy speaker.

    Mallard on Tuesday afternoon publicly apologised to the staffer, saying, in a statement, he had been wrong to describe the allegation as rape, and apologised for the “distress and humiliation” this caused the staffer.

    The statement was slipped under the Stuff press gallery office door on Tuesday afternoon, hours after the Royal Commission on the March 15 terror attack released its report. It did not detail the cost of the settlement.

    Mallard would not comment on the matter in the House or to media and, when ask to comment for this story, responded: “No.”

    National leader Judith Collins, in a statement releasing Mallard’s answers to written questions, said her party had decided Mallard was no longer fit to be Speaker of the House.

    “This is unacceptable behaviour from the Speaker …. It is the Speaker’s job to set the standard of behaviour for everyone at Parliament, but he has been reckless with his words, resulting in taxpayers footing a bill of more than $330,000 to clean up this mess.

    “There has been no formal apology to Parliament for this, despite the National Party encouraging the Speaker to do so on the final sitting day this year.

    “Because Mallard has not lived up to the high standards of behaviour that he has set for Parliament, we believe he is no longer fit to hold the role of Speaker.”

    • The Al1en 1.1
      11 December 2020 at 6:11 pm

      Only of real interest to political opportunists looking for a hit out.

      More important is the quote from a sufferer in Alison Mau's take.

      She praised Mallard for his "take no prisoners" attitude and said it was a relief to hear him call serious sexual assault, rape.

      “I think Trevor’s helped us turn a bit of a corner here,” she said.

      “When a woman makes an accusation of sexual offending she is confused and scared that she somehow imagined it. She feels responsible for the trouble she is causing. To have the man fronting the response (be) so unequivocal about where the blame lies, relieves her of all that confusion and blame, and fear.”

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/112955052/alison-mau?rm=a

      • Shanreagh 1.1.1
        11 December 2020 at 8:29 pm

        This is an important counter to the 'poor me' expressed for the person who has had a payout.

        This person has admitted to touching. What more is there to say really.

    • Robert Guyton 1.2
      11 December 2020 at 6:11 pm

      "he is a bullying arsehole"

      You're siding with Judith on this.

      Okay.

      • Chris T 1.2.1
        11 December 2020 at 6:17 pm

        I am not siding with anyone.

        It is my own opinion.

        He is a prick. I have had the displeasure of meeting him, and have seen enough with his reported past escapades (Like his fist fight).

        • Anne 1.2.1.1
          11 December 2020 at 7:29 pm

          "It is my own opinion."

          It is an ignorant opinion.

          A man was sexually harassing young women. No, it was not technically rape, but to the unfortunate victims it had the same effect – that is, fear and a feeling of degradation. Mallard voiced those feelings with his comment that ran along the lines that… it looked to him to be rape.

          Maybe unwise given his parliamentary status but not a sacking offence.

          The perpetrator used the technical breach to obtain $160,000 compensation which is yet another example of the morality – or the lack of it – of the NZ justice system and indeed the perpetrator himself.

          • Chris T 1.2.1.1.1
            11 December 2020 at 7:48 pm

            The perpetrator who was sued and apologised, changed the rules apparently, and paid out 1/3 of a million dollars of tax payer money to make it go away was Mallard.

            [please provide a credible citation to support that allegation. Linking to hearsay and unsubstantiated opinion doesn’t count – weka]

            • Anne 1.2.1.1.1.1
              11 December 2020 at 7:50 pm

              Shit off. laugh

            • weka 1.2.1.1.1.2
              11 December 2020 at 8:06 pm

              mod note for you.

            • weka 1.2.1.1.1.3
              11 December 2020 at 8:10 pm

              dropping you in premod until I get a response. You ignored my first request, now it's from a moderator. It's not ok to keep repeating the same lines without backing up your claim.

              • Chris T …
                11 December 2020 at 8:15 pm

                Do you mind pointing out which bit, as I had to guess.

              • Chris T …
                11 December 2020 at 8:20 pm

                You gave me 4 minutes and didn't actually say which bit you wanted a response to.

                [You’re in premod because I was about to log off for the night and you were already spamming the thread with the same lines. Nothing to do with other timing. It’s pretty clear from my mod note and comments what I want backing up. We’re now in wasting moderator time phase and I’m inclined to just ban you until after the holidays simply because I don’t want to spend my time on this.
                – weka]

            • Chris T 1.2.1.1.1.4
              11 December 2020 at 8:14 pm

              I said apparently.

              Forgive me.

              "Apparently, according to political editor Barry Soper"

              [you don’t get to decide where the boundaries are. Adding the word apparently doesn’t change things. Either provide evidence for the assertion or withdraw it or get a ban – weka]

            • Jester 1.2.1.1.1.5
              11 December 2020 at 10:58 pm

              In my opinion Mallard should resign. He's cost the tax payer thousands slandering someone which has been proven to be incorrect. It's not only Judith that wants him gone but also Seymour as well of course. I would be surprised if there were no Labour MP's that think he should go after this.

        • Robert Guyton 1.2.1.2
          11 December 2020 at 7:35 pm

          We should regard your opinion as … Chris T's.

        • Robert Guyton 1.2.1.3
          11 December 2020 at 7:40 pm

          "I am not siding with anyone."

          Ha, ha, ha, ha!

          Poetry!

        • Shanreagh 1.2.1.4
          11 December 2020 at 8:38 pm

          I have worked with him along with many others during 1992-1996 when Mallard was Whip. A more straight up person you could not meet. Called a spade a spade, what you see is what you got. Far preferable to anyone who is of a touchy feely bent, and many other and who cannot see or read the environment to note that touchy feely is actually not on in a workplace and especially where there is an imbalance of power.

          I don't know the person, I could easily find out. He has damned himself by owning up to hugging, kissing and complimenting – all actions that sensible people don't do in a workplace.

          I doubt, given that he has publicised ie minimised what he did, that anyone other than he himself may have caused people in the future to wonder about 'fit' in a workplace where women work.

          Your view/opinion exhibits a degree of personal animus that makes me wonder.

      • Incognito 1.2.2
        11 December 2020 at 11:53 pm

        I agree with Judith Collins, the Speaker “has been reckless with his words”, which is “unprofessional” according to David Seymour, and the Taxpayers’ Onion wants him to pay the money back, which is ironic coming from them 😀

        However, it was the current Speaker who instigated the Independent External Review into Bullying and Harassment in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace (https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/office-of-the-speaker/corporate-documents/independent-external-review-into-bullying-and-harassment-in-the-new-zealand-parliamentary-workplace-final-report/) and it seems he was overzealous and overstepped the line.

        AFAIK, Parliamentary Services have been following up and implementing many (?) of the recommendations in the Report.

    • weka 1.3
      11 December 2020 at 6:17 pm

      Arch hipocrisy from National, given nine years of creepy FJK including him yelling at the opposition that they support rapists.

      • Chris T 1.3.1
        11 December 2020 at 6:33 pm

        Are you saying that condones what Mallard has done?

        • weka 1.3.1.1
          11 December 2020 at 6:37 pm

          No, I'm saying Collins should shut the fuck up. Running lines that Mallard should resign because of unacceptable behaviour when she supported all Key all those years is bullshit politicking.

          • Chris T 1.3.1.1.1
            11 December 2020 at 6:43 pm

            Given the brand Ardern has created for the govt, they shouldn't have to be told by anyone the bloke should go/be moved to a different position.

            [You see, it’s comments like this one that make me wonder whether or not you’re really a clever troll siding with the DP gang in and of National. In this case, you’re trying to politicise the issue to attack Ardern.

            Here’s another almost identical example, in a thread on a sensitive and complex issue: https://thestandard.org.nz/assisted-dying-law-in-new-zealand-and-the-uk/#comment-1770385.

            My tendency is to give people the benefit of doubt but my gut instinct is telling me that you’re a troll. I have looked into your history here on this site and you’re a recidivist offender who has received many bans and countless Moderation notes. You’re wasting precious Moderator time.

            Lprent recently cut the Gordian Knot when he said this in a Moderation:

            Ambiguity carries penalties around here. And as most ambiguity seems to be a tactic, it leaves it completely up to a moderators personal choice about how they want to treat it.

            You can look it up yourself.

            Well, the tea leaves show an awful lot of ambiguity when asking about your motives here.

            Feel where I’m going with this?

            You’re in Pre-Moderation watch by weka but I think it’s fair to let you know that I’m actively monitoring you now to boot you off the site for a while. So, this is your final warning, as far as I’m concerned – Incognito]

            • Incognito 1.3.1.1.1.1
              11 December 2020 at 11:26 pm

              See my Moderation note @ 6:43 PM.

              • Chris T …
                12 December 2020 at 7:17 am

                I have seen it. But since this Pre-mod thing I can't post (well at least after they said it, so the booting off threat is a bit moot.

                Edit: Apparently now I can, you just have to approve them.

                [Warnings, warnings, warnings, so many warnings. Warnings are not threats. They are invitations to you to lift your game here. Something tells me that this is not going to happen.

                This particular warning was not an invitation to you to rebut or litigate your moderation. It was a request to take heed.

                Generally, Moderators are happy to answer any questions commenters might have about (their) moderation but in your case we’ve passed it and it would simply be wasting more of our time; ignorance is no excuse and you cannot feign it anyway.

                You’d be better advised to get yourself out of Pre-Moderation by providing an adequate response to weka’s moderation notes. Of course, if you’re a troll, and I’m now more convinced of this, then it will be another token effort until next time with lots of “I’m sorry” and “please, forgive me”. If you’re genuine, then we will see a genuine and lasting attempt to lift your game. Others here make an effort to improve so why not you??

                TTFN – Incognito]

                • Incognito …
                  12 December 2020 at 9:39 am

                  See my Moderation note @ 7:17 AM.

                • Chris T …
                  12 December 2020 at 10:09 am

                  Weka's moderation post didn't say which part of my post I had to clarify.

                  I get modding is annoying. I do it on other forums, but this

                  My post

                  The perpetrator who was sued and apologised, changed the rules apparently, and paid out 1/3 of a million dollars of tax payer money to make it go away was Mallard.

                  "The perpetrator who was sued and apologised,"

                  Mallard in the case in question we were discussing Unless you deny this happening when it was reported in multiple media.

                  "changed the rules apparently,"

                  My fault. Should have put a disclaimer it was an accusation by Soper.

                  "and paid out 1/3 of a million dollars of tax payer money "

                  This is true and reported in multiple links provided by me.

                  "to make it go away was Mallard."

                  Admittedly my opinion, apologies, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist given the timing.

                  [all you had to do was provide a credible link to support your assertion that wasn’t from a partisan hack like Soper. I would have accepted something from a right winger, had it been credible. But seeing as how you can’t even be bothered to do that, I’m banning you until after the holidays so I don’t have to keep spending my time on this. Can’t emphasise how much wasting mod time is a factor in moderation, learn from this when you come back – weka]

                  [checked the Mod post to see previous moderations and there’s too many to look at. Three month ban mostly for wasting my time, but also, if you want to comment here you *have to provide evidence for assertions of fact especially about public figures. Noting in the back end because if this happens again you can expect a much longer ban. See also https://thestandard.org.nz/a-bit-about-how-the-standard-works/ – weka]

                  • weka …
                    12 December 2020 at 10:20 am

                    two mod notes.

                  • weka …
                    13 December 2020 at 10:45 pm

                    Re the 4 minute, no warning complaint. My first mod note was at 8.06pm on 11/12/20. The ban was given after 10pm and you had posted again by then. I don't know if you didn't see my notes, or ignored them (again, the issue here is about my time spent and the onus is on the commenter to do the legwork), but my suggestion is to use the Reply list so you can see who has replied to you and if it is a moderator, go read what they say before doing anything else.

                • Chris T …
                  12 December 2020 at 10:23 am

                  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/trevor-mallard-defamation-case-settling-speakers-false-rape-claim-against-staffer-costs-taxpayers-333000-national/P2J7YX4WTQM3EZWLBCPAWPZGFM/

                  In August, the Speaker issued new 'directions' (rules for MPs funding and spending), which expanded the range of legal costs MPs could have funded from the taxpayer purse, to include "damages and payments to settle a legal action."

                  In the past, that funding was only available for legal costs to defend the legal proceedings taken against them in their capacity as MPs – and not for settlements.

                  To get approval for it, it has to be signed off by the Speaker and chief executive of Parliamentary Service.

                  They must "consider the extent to which the member's involvement in the proceedings is due to the member acting in their capacity as a member of Parliament."

                  The money usually comes out of a political party's overall pool of funding.

                  There are separate provisions for Cabinet Ministers' legal costs.

                  In cases where Cabinet minister are sued for something such as defamation, the Cabinet Manual said Cabinet will decide whether their legal costs are covered – and whether to pay for any costs or damages awards if the Minister loses in court.

                  [thanks Chris. Had you provided that the first or even second time you were asked for it, two things would have happened. One is you wouldn’t now be on a 3 month ban. The other is that we could have had an actual political debate about that aspect of the situation, because instead of partisan hack reckons, we had some actual facts to work with. That’s what we are here for. – weka]

          • Shanreagh 1.3.1.1.2
            11 December 2020 at 8:46 pm

            Yes, agree but then she/National Party not given to introspection or knowledge of the glasshouses and stones analogy.

            And arguably the involvement of Paula Bennett in this whole saga when she treated the fact that women had come to her as a political point scoring exercise rather than alerting the PM in a one on one basis was another low point.

  2. Bazza64 2
    11 December 2020 at 6:14 pm

    Jacinda did say in politics we should be kinder to each other & that she would have an open & transparent government. She has failed on both counts & when questioned about Mallard’s behaviour doesn’t act like a decent prime minister. If Helen Clark was in charge Mallard would be off to the chopping block.

    • weka 2.1
      11 December 2020 at 6:18 pm

      Why should Mallard go?

      • Chris T 2.1.1
        11 December 2020 at 6:28 pm

        He accused a staff member of being a rapist, which basically cost the bloke his career (given the size of Wellington.

        He is supposed to understand the intricacies of House Rules, yet doesn't know what rape is.

        He tried to hide his apology in amongst the announcements of the biggest report of the year.

        According to Soper this afternoon he changed the rules after doing it so he didnt have to pay for his bullying, as he obviouslyknew he would lose.

        https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/opinion/barry-soper-trevor-mallard-should-resign-for-his-disgraceful-behaviour/

        It's been confirmed that the almost $334,000 in legal costs have been paid out by the taxpayer. Why? Well Mallard had the rules changed after he made his outrageous comment to protect him from having the pay the bill for something he clearly knew would go against him.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          11 December 2020 at 6:35 pm

          there's a lot of unsubstantiated assertion in that opinion piece, and its from Soper, do you have a better reference?

          Mallard made a mistake in an RNZ interview, conflating legal definitions of sexual assault with rape. He didn't know who the staffer was and from what I can tell believed that the person wasn't known generally. I don't know if he was mistaken on that.

          • Chris T 2.1.1.1.1
            11 December 2020 at 6:50 pm

            No offence, and forgive me if I am wrong, but you seem to be coming across as trying to fob off what Mallard did as just a mistake, lets just forget about it.

            Wellington is a small place, with loads of govt departments who all know each other and gossip.

            Trust me. Most of them know who it is.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 December 2020 at 7:06 pm

              It's not 'just' a mistake, it's an important mistake, but not one that I think he should lose the Speaker role for. I haven't seen a convincing argument for why he should eg he knew who the man was and knew his words would seriously impact on the man.

              Also, if you ask me who I think is more likely to be accurate and truthful over the nature of the assaults, Mallard or Soper, I'd pick Mallard. But I don't know the details of the case, so I am guessing.

              • McFlock …
                11 December 2020 at 7:22 pm

                Especially as we don't know the details of the case that had been described to Mallard at the time.

                One the one hand you have the guy's description:

                The man claimed the three allegations were related to hugging a colleague, complimenting another colleague on her hair, and kissing another on her cheek as he said goodbye to her after she visited him and his wife for tea.

                and at the other end there is Mallard saying:

                "We're talking about serious sexual assault. Well that, for me, that's rape," he said. "That is the impression I get from the report."

                I know the right wing have nightmares about "woke liberal" complaints, but there's more than just a semantic difference between those two descriptions of behaviour.

                • weka …
                  11 December 2020 at 7:28 pm

                  the extent to which those on the right are willing to use rape culture and minimising of it for political gain (including Collins today) is a big factor in why I'm more inclined to believe Mallard. Although it could just be that I don't trust Soper as far as I could throw him.

                  • Shanreagh …
                    11 December 2020 at 8:06 pm

                    Agree with you Weka. I would trust Mallard over Soper any day and Mallard over Collins any day.

                    National Party is the last party to be acting shocked about this and calling anyone to account……bearing in mind the lack of ethical and moral framework that was so apparent last year.

                • Shanreagh …
                  11 December 2020 at 9:03 pm

                  There an important time delay between the statements. Mallard's was in reaction to the Debbie Francis report, a survey done of Parliamentary staff, ongoing cases of sexual shenanigans, Paula Bennett using the approach of several Labour staff members to her as a political point scoring exercise. There were allegations all round. At one stage it was thought that there were several of these men in staff positions.

                  I have not seen the statements from the person who got the payout before now. These were not around or public when all the above were going on. We did not know who it was.

                  So Mallard was not aware that the person had admitted to touching, kissing and complimenting ie his 'rape' response was not to this. It was to report after report seeming to be coming out about Labour staff having gone too far.

                  The point is in all of this is that the man has admitted to doing things that could be unwelcome, could cause women to wonder if they were safe etc with him, wonder if they are going to be able to keep working there. Power imbalance

            • Robert Guyton 2.1.1.1.1.2
              11 December 2020 at 7:37 pm

              Trust you? You're connected to the "loads of govt departments who all know each other and gossip"?

              We should trust you on that basis??

              Okey-dokey!

            • Robert Guyton 2.1.1.1.1.3
              11 December 2020 at 7:39 pm

              "Gossip"?

              "Gossip" !!

              Our new realty – gossip!

              Nice, Chris T!

        • McFlock 2.1.1.2
          11 December 2020 at 6:44 pm

          Shades of Helen Clark and her own issue over the legal semantics between "murder" and "manslaughter". Meh.

          Soper's mate claimed it was all about an innocent hug and a hair compliment. Yeah, right.

        • Treetop 2.1.1.3
          11 December 2020 at 7:51 pm

          334k is a lot of money to have been spent on lawyers.

          Surely a legal opinion was given to Mallard at the onset.

          It is a big stretch from unproven indecent assault to an allegation of rape.

          I have little faith in any MP when it comes to a mental injury covered by ACC because I am not at all surprised by their ignorance.

          Mallard has seen his error. If the situation affects how he does his job as speaker in the future, then his job has become untenable.

          • Anne 2.1.1.3.1
            11 December 2020 at 8:04 pm

            It is a big stretch from unproven indecent assault to an allegation of rape.

            It may not have been proven in a court of law but from memory several women came forward with complaints about the same person. That indicated he harassed and degraded young women.

            My memory of the context around Mallard's words was not a formal allegation of rape, but rather he regarded it as something along the lines of rape. A fair enough conclusion given what else was being reported at the time.

            This is the usual kind of pathetic political one-up-man-ship game we have come to expect from National and ACT.

            • Shanreagh 2.1.1.3.1.1
              11 December 2020 at 8:16 pm

              And so we minimise the 'things' that this person has done…….by applying male chauv standards. Next thing we know he'll be saying 'she couldn't take a joke'.

              a hug, when one may have neither wanted or expected and certainly not normal in a public service setting.

              compliments – most thinking bosses or people in charge know this is an absolute minefield.

              kissing on the cheek – see above when one may have neither wanted or expected and certainly not normal in a public service setting.

              These do sound overly touchy feely and unwelcome attention from someone in power to an underling and fit the usual definitions of sexual harassment.

              • Treetop …
                11 December 2020 at 10:04 pm

                Do not put words in my mouth which I did not say.

                Clearly something happened and Mallard's stupidity has probably added to the distress of the women who spoke up about the government employee.

            • Nic the NZer 2.1.1.3.1.2
              11 December 2020 at 8:27 pm

              This appears to have been investigated by parliamentary services. They concluded the accusations were unsubstantiated so the only account we have of the nature of events is from the Soper interview.

              There isn't really anything public backing up Mallards description of events, not even a claim by reporters that the accusations were more serious than described.

              • McFlock …
                11 December 2020 at 8:38 pm

                And yet the idea that Mallard read a report about a hug and felt that it amounted to something on the level of rape just doesn't scan.

                • Nic the NZer …
                  11 December 2020 at 8:43 pm

                  No it doesn't, but your honour I'm not that stupid, wouldn't qualify as a defence and holds up even less in the court of public opinion.

                  • McFlock …
                    11 December 2020 at 8:53 pm

                    Well, the former appears to involve a settlement, and the latter isn't actually a court.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      11 December 2020 at 9:04 pm

                      Given the price of the advice I would like to believe the defence was of a higher standard than that…

                    • McFlock …
                      11 December 2020 at 9:26 pm

                      Personally, I hope he's not taking the reputational hit just to protect the complainant by keeping the details of a serious sexual assault from being trawled through civil court.

                      300k isn't all that's stopping Grant Robertson from signing the cheques for a bold nay revolutionary government agenda of social and economic reform. In the greater scheme of things, it's fuckall.

              • Anne …
                11 December 2020 at 8:43 pm

                They concluded the accusations were unsubstantiated…

                I remember no such claim from Parliamentary Services!

                What I do remember is evidence they tried to sweep the complaints under the carpet which many of us have found to be normal practice from Public Service entities when faced with allegations of bullying, sexual harassment and other forms of intimidation.

                • Nic the NZer …
                  11 December 2020 at 8:50 pm

                  Your saying they swept an accusation of sexual assault under the rug?

                  • McFlock …
                    11 December 2020 at 9:04 pm

                    Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

                    But other options include:

                    • Mallard thinking a hug was akin to rape;
                    • a complainant who didn't want to be targeted by Soper and tories so did not want to take their complaint further, and Mallard is taking a hit for summarising the complaint accurately but prematurely in public;
                    • the initial confidential findings getting a massive backtrack when employment and more serious options started being pursued
                    • Mallard completely misread and conflated the allegations into something that nobody had described;
                    • maybe some other possibility that hasn't occurred to me

                    If I were offered a million dollars if I could pick the correct scenario, I wouldn't be picking that Mallard thought an innocent but unwelcome hug was a serious sexual assault akin to rape.

                  • Anne …
                    11 December 2020 at 9:11 pm

                    In the past that is exactly what some Public Service entities did when an employee came forward and tried to lay complaints about a superior officer.

                    In my case, it was bullying and intimidation but I did also report a series of obscene phone calls I was receiving around the same time. Instead of giving me support, they effectively accused me of lying.

                    It happened a long time ago now but I have noted from cases which have landed in the media from time to time that in reality not a lot seems to have changed.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      11 December 2020 at 9:32 pm

                      I don't see how calling an accusation of sexual harassment 'a rape' and being unable to pursue that with the police is helping victims of sexual harassment. So unless the accusation was of that nature I don't see any difference between parliamentary services sweeping this under the rug and alternatively sacking the staffer for inappropriate behaviour. Probably they think the punishment was fit and you think it was a thorough cover up.

              • Shanreagh …
                11 December 2020 at 9:39 pm

                You need to look at the Debbie Francis report. Read press from the time. There was also an SSC(?) or parliamentary services (?) investigations. There were around 40 complaints, from memory, about things there.

                These were piling up and then the latest, whether a conflation of several complaints, or what, was that there had been at least instance of more serious issues.

                it did not come out of nowhere

                we had no idea who was involved then though some could find out joining dots

                all the accounts were saying that a person/s were persistently crossing boundaries

                'kissing', 'hugging', 'complimenting' were not what Mallard was directly referring to, he may be hot-headed but he is not silly enough to call that rape.

                They were unwarranted and unwise approaches to young female staff by a person who should have known better.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.3.1.3
              11 December 2020 at 8:35 pm

              It's the appropriation of empathetic sounds while obviously not understanding a word they say that pisses me off. They just seem to think it's some sort of ritual one does to score points.

            • Treetop 2.1.1.3.1.4
              11 December 2020 at 9:55 pm

              I was not saying that nothing did not happen. When it comes to what Mallard said happened (allegation of rape) this did not happen and the government employee was defamed.

              The women who were harassed were put into a position by Mallard which possibly made it differcult to make a complaint to the police. Where there is no police complaint the police usually do not do an investigation. Not every person wants to make a complaint either.

              • Anne …
                11 December 2020 at 10:14 pm

                I don't think it was Mallard who put them in that position. It was more the actions of Paula Bennett and the politically motivated furore – aided an abetted by some in the media – that followed. They didn't want to go the police. They wanted their employers, Parliamentary Services to take action -perhaps move on the person who was causing them grief.

                • Shanreagh …
                  11 December 2020 at 10:38 pm

                  Yep. Fair summary.

                • Treetop …
                  11 December 2020 at 10:46 pm

                  It is never good when an organisation investigates itself when bullying, harassment sexual assault and making up false allegations occurs.

                  • Anne …
                    12 December 2020 at 10:30 am

                    Mallard did not make an outright allegation. He served to make a comparison with rape as the effects of the harassment on the young victims were reasonably serious. Not a good suitable description granted and he has acknowledged as much.

                    It is different to an allegation of rape, and that is conveniently being ignored by Collins, Seymour, Soper and other journos who have jumped on the story.

                    • Treetop …
                      12 December 2020 at 11:25 am

                      I do expect any MP or the speaker of the house who is in charge of Parliamentary Services to know the difference between bullying, sexual harassment, gaslighting, indecent assault, sexual assault, sexual violation and rape. All of these offences cause harm. In some cases years go by until a person is psychologically well enough to make a complaint and has the resources for a lawyer. In some instances the perpetrator continues their horrid behaviour and the employer needs a reason for them to be removed or excuses are made by the employer for not removing the perpetrator.

                      What is the answer?

      • Chris T 2.1.2
        11 December 2020 at 6:39 pm

        Sorry. Missed a bit from the article

        The $158,000 made to him is for the payment of his legal bills and a $171,000 has been paid to Mallard's lawyers at Dentons Kensington Swan. A further $4641 went to Crown Law for advice to Parliament's then deputy Speaker Anne Tolley who Mallard delegated to have the rules changed to protect him.

        • weka 2.1.2.1
          11 December 2020 at 6:44 pm

          yeah, that's some of the unsubstantiated assertion from Soper.

        • McFlock 2.1.2.2
          11 December 2020 at 6:47 pm

          In Soper's opinion.

          Pretty sure Mallard ordering Tolley to "change the rules to protect me" would have raised some pretty big headlines, even if Tolley were inclined to go along with it. Seems more like Mallard stepped back from the issue due to the conflict of interest.

          • weka 2.1.2.2.1
            11 December 2020 at 7:07 pm

            In which case it's interesting that Soper feels free to assert that.

          • Phillip ure 2.1.2.2.2
            11 December 2020 at 7:08 pm

            @ mcflock..

            really…?

            I think if sopers' allegation that mallard had the laws changed to save his own pocket…are true..

            mallard has to walk…

            that is corruption..

            (just in case anyone was wondering)

            it is one thing to run off at the mouth…

            …but to do what soper alleges..

            ..is corruption..

            and he can't stay in that role that he now has..

            • McFlock 2.1.2.2.2.1
              11 December 2020 at 7:13 pm

              "if"

              • Anne …
                11 December 2020 at 7:37 pm

                Barry Soper went berserk when Labour won the 2017 election. He could not hide his anger and malice and behaved like a spoiled brat for a year or more afterwards at every PM media stand-up. Ardern's patience with him was remarkable. I would have told him to shit off and never return – which is why I never contemplated a political career.

                • Phillip ure …
                  11 December 2020 at 8:31 pm

                  I have long thought that soper is a feckin' idjit…

                  but that does not necessarily mean his allegation is untrue…

                  ..and I really must note..that if a tory speaker was alleged to have done this..(changed the law to protect his pocket)

                  most here now defending mallard..would be screaming for his head..

                  ..eh..?

                  • McFlock …
                    11 December 2020 at 8:40 pm

                    If someone credible made the allegation and had evidence, Mallard would be in deeper shit than "Soper wants me to quit".

                    • Phillip ure …
                      11 December 2020 at 9:42 pm

                      this is only day one of this little purler..

                      if true it has a way yet to run..

                      and if proven correct..

                      ..I can't see mallard surviving it..

                      and..you all seem to be focused on shooting the messenger..eh..?

                      soper is just repeating what he has been told..

                      the focus should be on the proving..or not..of the corruption allegation
                      .

                    • McFlock …
                      11 December 2020 at 9:57 pm

                      For one thing, NZ political commentators are breathless gossips who are completely wrong more often than they are correct.

                      The only message they communicate is their own. One or two of them have been treading the line between reporting and advocacy (ISTR allegations of friendship between them and the staffer?). So "if" you have any actual evidence that Mallard committed a corrupt act, take it to the cops.

                    • Phillip ure []
                      11 December 2020 at 10:35 pm

                      um..!..you seem to be confusing me with the source of this allegation..

                      I am not making it ..

                      I am commenting on it..

                    • McFlock …
                      12 December 2020 at 12:15 am

                      So you have nothing other than your faith in the truth and accuracy of half a dozen words from a NZ professional parliamentary opinionator.

                      Like I said: "if".

                    • Phillip ure []
                      12 December 2020 at 1:34 pm

                      a bit more than that..

                      all I am saying is that it needs investigating..

                      ..and while not defending soper…yes I can see him spinning..

                      but this is a serious/detailed allegation..

                      ..involving the speaker and the deputy speaker..

                      ..so it can't just be ignored..

                      and I don’t see soper just making it all up..

                    • McFlock …
                      12 December 2020 at 3:02 pm

                      You have a bit more than Soper's word for it?

                      No you don't.

                      You might not see Soper "making it all up". Neither do I. I'm quite prepared to believe that Mallard recused himself from making the decision due to a conflict of interest, and delegated Tolley to decide what the correct thing to be done was.

                      But I can definitely see Soper spinning a proper and responsible course of action into something corrupt, especially if Soper happened to be mates with the guy who got three definite complaints for inappropriate behaviour.

  4. Phillip ure 4
    11 December 2020 at 10:37 pm

    new zealand is crying out for a clark & dawes..

    we have no political satire..

    • Sabine 4.1
      12 December 2020 at 7:18 am

      consider that satire is now called normal day in politics and then we don't need any more comedians.